> But have you not considered the possibility that there was no Mt.Everest
> in the days before the Flood? There may not have been any marked 'highs'
> and 'lows'. Indeed, returning to an earlier theme, this would fit in
> very well with a world that had known no rain until the Deluge - and the
> rainbow!
Since the great rivers of the Middle East existed before the Flood (Gen.
2), it seems natural to assume that Mt. Everest and the other high
mountains existed also.
> But on what basis would you say that 'eretz' - as we find it in the
> Flood narrative - 'obviously' does not refer to planet Earth? As I've
> pointed out to Glenn, the context strongly suggests that.
I simply pointed out one instance in the Flood account in which 'erets
obviously didn't mean the entire planet. As for its other occurences in
this account a translation of it as land would also make sense.
People in Moses's time probably wouldn't have debated about whether or not
he meant the whole planet. They didn't know the extent of the earth. If
the water covered everything in sight, they would have said that it
covered the 'erets.
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395